Re^3: Suggestions for radical career change?

My experience belies that assertion quite handily. I don't mean to imply that I think that those with degrees are inherently unreliable, or anything even remotely similar.

I won't get into my thoughts on grade inflation, diploma factories, etc, but your example showed my point to be true -- the guy didn't leave. Now, he didn't produce anything of value, but he didn't cut and run.

What he did do, was over promise and under deliver, which I already commented on. Personality is just as important as skill when it comes to a job -- is the person going to work towards the goals of the project? How do they handle setbacks? Do they communicate when they're running into problems and/or ask for help?

This is why it's better to get someone who admits to their failings, and is willing to ask for help. The person who thinks they know everything will assume that there's nothing more to learn, and will make no attempt at improving.

There was a question on Slashdot yesterday, with someone complaining about Behavioural interviews during job applications. They're important, be it interviews, or checking references, etc. (and for references, there are certain questions you can't ask, so start with the easiest one -- would you hire this person back?)

Comment on Re^3: Suggestions for radical career change?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Suggestions for radical career change? by gloryhack (Deacon) on Apr 22, 2006 at 04:10 UTC
...your example showed my point to be true -- the guy didn't leave. Respectfully, I assert that my example does not prove your point to be true, and I apologize for not providing adequate details to avoid the appearance that it might. The point isn't proven by my example because "The project continued without..." doesn't address the manner of his leaving, and unless the implied assumption that I abruptly terminated his contract holds true there's no basis for proof. The missing details that might have avoided the appearance of proof: After three weeks the (only) code he (ever) delivered was less than 30 lines, most inaccurately transcribed from a common text, with a light frobbing. It contained three logical errors, all within the frobnication, and five lexical errors, three within the inaccurate transcription and two within the frobbed portion. He presumably expended no more than a half hour's effort -- and copied code samples from a $20 book are not something a reasonably intelligent person pays Ph.D. wages to acquire, anyway. After conducting the contractually mandated code review in which he refused to participate we respectfully asked him to rework the code to substantially but not necessarily perfectly meet the clearly written specification, and to ensure that it would not invoke die() when run with the strict pragma used. He refused, stating that "his" work was "... a simple, elegant, robust solution". He might not have left in the most strict meaning of the word, but his presence was only to the extent of displacing air. You might, as I do, consider that jumping ship without getting wet. Yes, I terminated his contract because he willingly breached it, but not until offers of compromise and other diplomatic efforts failed. I came away from the experience thinking that the guy was suffering from some kind of a mental or emotional disorder, to so thoroughly self-sabotage while refusing numerous and respectful offers of assistance including the reassignment of some of his responsibility. He interviewed brilliantly. He impressed me in the thinking aloud portion of the interview, and particularly in the realm of the problem domain that kicked him in the head later. I was tickled to have hired such a brilliant guy and eager to integrate him into the group. It remains a mystery to me that he didn't even attempt to implement the solution at which he'd arrived during the interview, even after I explicitly asked him to try his hand at it well before he delivered the borrowed then busted code. Beware the genius incompetent. Of course, one example does not constitute a trend, and I wholeheartedly agree with you that it's the person and not the degree that matters. It just happens that I stand by my assertion that "It's relatively easy to obtain a degree during four or more years spent living on Daddy's generosity, as contrasted with gaining substantially the same knowledge of one's chosen field, within or without academia, while coping with the struggles of the real world." Thanks for an interesting bit of discussion. It seems that we don't disagree by very much.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Suggestions for radical career change?
by gloryhack (Deacon) on Apr 22, 2006 at 04:10 UTC

...your example showed my point to be true -- the guy didn't leave.

Respectfully, I assert that my example does not prove your point to be true, and I apologize for not providing adequate details to avoid the appearance that it might. The point isn't proven by my example because "The project continued without..." doesn't address the manner of his leaving, and unless the implied assumption that I abruptly terminated his contract holds true there's no basis for proof. The missing details that might have avoided the appearance of proof: After three weeks the (only) code he (ever) delivered was less than 30 lines, most inaccurately transcribed from a common text, with a light frobbing. It contained three logical errors, all within the frobnication, and five lexical errors, three within the inaccurate transcription and two within the frobbed portion. He presumably expended no more than a half hour's effort -- and copied code samples from a $20 book are not something a reasonably intelligent person pays Ph.D. wages to acquire, anyway. After conducting the contractually mandated code review in which he refused to participate we respectfully asked him to rework the code to substantially but not necessarily perfectly meet the clearly written specification, and to ensure that it would not invoke die() when run with the strict pragma used. He refused, stating that "his" work was "... a simple, elegant, robust solution". He might not have left in the most strict meaning of the word, but his presence was only to the extent of displacing air. You might, as I do, consider that jumping ship without getting wet. Yes, I terminated his contract because he willingly breached it, but not until offers of compromise and other diplomatic efforts failed.

I came away from the experience thinking that the guy was suffering from some kind of a mental or emotional disorder, to so thoroughly self-sabotage while refusing numerous and respectful offers of assistance including the reassignment of some of his responsibility. He interviewed brilliantly. He impressed me in the thinking aloud portion of the interview, and particularly in the realm of the problem domain that kicked him in the head later. I was tickled to have hired such a brilliant guy and eager to integrate him into the group. It remains a mystery to me that he didn't even attempt to implement the solution at which he'd arrived during the interview, even after I explicitly asked him to try his hand at it well before he delivered the borrowed then busted code. Beware the genius incompetent.

Of course, one example does not constitute a trend, and I wholeheartedly agree with you that it's the person and not the degree that matters. It just happens that I stand by my assertion that "It's relatively easy to obtain a degree during four or more years spent living on Daddy's generosity, as contrasted with gaining substantially the same knowledge of one's chosen field, within or without academia, while coping with the struggles of the real world."

Thanks for an interesting bit of discussion. It seems that we don't disagree by very much.

[reply]